If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Websleuths News

Join Websleuths Radio for the final discussion of THE KILLING SEASON
with Josh Zemam, Rachel Mills and special guests including Bob Kolker author of Lost Girls

That is how the system works, she would have had to access the system and opt in to receive a text or log on to the system real time to check if the child had cut a class.

I believe one of her tweets indicated she cut school one day in January.

The tweet had a hashtag something like #thingsihaveneverdone; the meaning of the tweet was that she had never cut school for an entire day, in my opinion.

Those types of hashtags are like an invitation to make an entry on a list, which can be viewed in its entirety by searching on the hashtag. In this case, the user's contribution to the "list" was that she had never cut school.

Okay ... Pensfan... when I used to fingerprint people while working in the jail, folks would come to the front window ten times a day. They would bring in one print card, we would then take them down, verify their identification, print them, date the print card, have them sign the card, then we would sign the card. Then they would get given that card to send into CBI for their background for employment. In some cases they returned it to their employer to be mailed in volume with others that were done.

However, When we booked an inmate, We did the cards in triplicate. We had to fill the card out totally, Name, Alias, Ht, Wt, Hair, eyes, etc. We then had to sign it, and have them sign it. If they would not sign we had to put "refused" and then one card went in our file. Two went to CBI. Upon final dispo, we then would have to take additional prints, to put what the final outcome of the charges were. We had to do card in triplicate for each count. There is a large difference as to how prints are handled. IMHO

bbm
Fascinating! An employer lets a potential employee send in his/her own fingerprints? This is similar to letting parolees with drug convictions bring in urine for their drug screens instead of urinating in a cup on site. (Oh, never mind. This was happening in my county just a few months ago. The employees lost their good paying county jobs, but none are being prosecuted. This is different from Portabella's situation though. These employees had policies stating the urine was to be submitted on site. Sorry...off topic.)

A little reality check,In the US, there are approximately 250,000 children reported missing annually. A frightening number but most of these are "runaways". There are however around 58,000 who are classified as "abducted". This turns out to be a very broad category involving many situations I would not consider "abductions". Only 21 percent were actually reported to the police as "missing". Of these there was one sub-category that really applies to our concerns; the category of "stereotypical kidnapping" which is basically "abduction by force for nefarious purposes by a stranger or slight acquaintance resulting in the child being held overnight or taken over 50 miles away. This occurs about 115 times a year in the US and about 45 of these "events" result in the child’s death.

As there are 70 million children in the US, this occurrence is literally "one in a million". It is extremely rare. Like airplane crashes; we worry about them because they are horrifying, not because they are likely to happen’

The 115 includes only cases where it can be proven that an abduction occurred (i.e. body found, suspect proven guilty via DNA or a confession). There are many unreported cases. There are also many cases where no one knows what happened. I could literally come up with hundreds of those cases just in the Houston, TX area alone.

Statistics are for books, not to apply to a real-life situation. Even if the statistics were 100% factual. It is all very random, so while one-in-a-million chance, it could happen to ANYONE at ANY TIME.

JMO ... but Sheriff Smith knew EXACTLY what she was saying when she made that statement ...

The Sheriff made this statement on a national tv show -- Nancy Grace Show -- and although many people dislike Nancy and the way she "treats" her guests, she has a huge audience and a huge following ...

This statement made by the Sheriff came AFTER the Lt.'s statement ... AND ... to my knowledge, is the most recent statement as to whether or not anyONE has been cleared or not ...

JMO ... but this statement made by the Sheriff is going to rule out any and all previous statements by anyone else in the ranks ... Whether anyone agrees with the Sheriff's statement or not, the Sheriff is the TOP LE in the county ... and I would think the Sheriff is going to "call the shots" as she will be the one held liable ...

GRACE: We are back and taking your calls in the search for 15-year- old Sierra Lamar. To Sheriff Laurie Smith, Santa Clara county sheriff.

Sheriff, explain to me what is the issue with the live-in boyfriend?

SMITH: We`ve talked with him. We`re continuing the investigation. Until Sierra`s home safely, we`re not eliminating anybody, and any new information that we get or any new suspicions we get, we will absolutely totally follow up.

..Something I just noticed in the transcript above..... nancy is specifically asking about BF... What a weird response from Sheriff... She said on national tv that They LE are NOT eliminating anyone... Since Nancy question was specifically about BF that would mean clearly that he is not in the clear with LE .. IMO..

Anyway, I read "somewhere" that the reason for the move was that Sierra was caught drinking at school, I believe, and was suspended, not expelled from school, and that's why the mom & BF moved to MH.

NO?

That report was from a member at Hinky. The member said her daughter went to school with Sierra at Fremont. It seemed like a credible post to me, and Hinky did not take it down,so it might be accurate.

I do know that if a student is caught on campus either drunk, or with alcohol, even if not drunk, then it is an automatic expulsion. So that part seems correct.

Also, it always seemed weird to me that a student would switch school in October. If you are moving, why not start school in September at your NEW school? It seems an odd way to plan it so it makes more sense to me that it was an unplanned switch of schools.

“Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

I did not mean to upset you Pensfan, its just common practice. We do the prints for free at the Sheriff Dept, however the Police Dept charges. I think that has to do with the fact that Sheriffs are elected into office if you ask me.

It is not the same however as having them bring in urine. Prints cannot be altered on the card. Also if you are not good at rolling prints, they can be rejected by CBI, if they are even smudged they are rejected. Also job backgrounds your not stripping and searching the applicant, so you have to take their word for scars, marks and tattoo's etc. So what is the difference. With inmates we do strip them and go over every part of their body, with our eyes of course, we cannot touch them.

When it comes to U.A's I ran the program not only at the D.O.C. but also at the 252 program at the Community Corrections I later worked at. When taking a U.A. we literally have to use a flashlight and watch the urine enter the cup, much harder on female officers I might add. Also they can tell if its dilute or if they dipped. We check temp on the cup itself. So that too is foolproof as long as your squeamish as inmates can be disgusting when it comes to random U.A.'s.

Please keep being respectful of the presumed victim's family, of one another, and of TOS.

Question: Is the opening post correct in stating (bolding mine):

The parents and the mother's boyfriend have been cleared. Sleuthing them and speculating about their involvement is off limits.

I had read that the three were not named as POIs, but that is a far different concept from saying they've been cleared. Does anyone have a quote directly from LE stating that all 3 were in fact cleared?

"Clearing" this up might help with all of the confusion, altho the rules and TOS would remain the same.

Ok I might have misstated my bad. But until we know what the LE has I also suggest lets not get ready to Have Rick locked up or for that matter anyone else in the family. Seems Marlene could have came back after she said she went to work also.
But I don't see anybody doubting her?

No problem about the "misstated" ... I do it sometimes myself ... lol ...

I do wish LE would answer some of the unanswered questions ...

And JMO, but there are a lot of things that raise the "hinky meter" ... If there were some confirmation or answers, I think there would be less "speculation" with respect to Rick and Marlene ...

And again, JMO, while I understand that going on Nancy Grace's Show is "no picnic", Marlene could have easily answered the question about Rick, but she chose not to ... and that right there raised the "hinky meters" ...

GRACE: We are back and taking your calls in the search for 15-year- old Sierra Lamar. To Sheriff Laurie Smith, Santa Clara county sheriff.

Sheriff, explain to me what is the issue with the live-in boyfriend?

SMITH: We`ve talked with him. We`re continuing the investigation. Until Sierra`s home safely, we`re not eliminating anybody, and any new information that we get or any new suspicions we get, we will absolutely totally follow up.

..Something I just noticed in the transcript above..... nancy is specifically asking about BF... What a weird response from Sheriff... She said on national tv that They LE are NOT eliminating anyone... Since Nancy question was specifically about BF that would mean clearly that he is not in the clear with LE .. IMO..

ITA with your post...

But once again you have to take everything that Smith says. We are not elminating anyone that would include to me Marlene and Steve IMHO. So I guess now none of them are cleared correct?

I never checked on my daughter's school attendance until the day came that she gave me reason to check. I checked twice a day after that, mid-morning and again after lunch. Daughter hated me for it but so what. Checking gave me peace of mind and her knowing I was checking made her hesitant to do what she had done that day that was a game changer. But my point is, I never checked until I needed to. I will admit that she could have been missing or murdered had things gone differently on game-changer day. And I will also admit that that possibility stayed with me all through her remaining high school days.

School personnel got to thinking of me as a pest because I called twice a day. But again, so what.

I understand the interest in watching kids as they go to and from school. However, when parents are home "safe" with their children, there are in-house burglaries that turn ugly, and drive by shootings that kill people, too.
Just something to think about when we are analyzing the need to monitor children going to, from, and at school.

ETA:
krkrjx..I was just using your post to express my thoughts.
I agree with you that children need to be monitored, but they need to be given experiences with parameters where they can practice real life. When wrong choices are made, guidance and closer monitoring can then be enhanced.

ETA: again.... This is probably going to land at a place in this thread where it doesn't seem to "fit the flow". Sorry...I am catching up with the reading!

Last edited by IHAVENOCLUE; 04-16-2012 at 11:09 PM.
Reason: clarification